[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Strawman of outstanding issues
Peter, This is a good deck. A couple of comments: Mediator –? is a registry a good example? Do we have better
ones? Is it more than mediator? I do not consider a registry to
be a mediator. A registry is a specialized entity in his own right with its own
set of goals. Typically a mediator is an
entity that is invoking service on behalf as a consumer and is seen by consumer
as a service (compare to proxy in a distributed system). The difference between
mediator and a simple proxy is significant – mediator is more like an interpreter
in a conversation between people speaking different languages. Typical
mediators do the following – transport transformation (for example MOM to
HTTP), semantic alignment (data transformation), dynamic routing, often
leveraging registry (version-based routing, etc) I am not sure how Skill is
relevant for SOA I have a real issue with
introducing resources into SOA. The problem is Resources are orthogonal to
services – it is a completely different model of the world – see REST
vs SOA. A service implementation internally does depend on resources, but this
is opaque to the service consumer. The issue here is that SOA is
based on the functional decomposition, where functions can cross resource
boundaries, where Resource decomposition is based on identifying resources,
regardless of services they provide. A system can be build either way, but
those will be 2 different systems. The relationship is similar to entity beans
(resource) vs session beans (services). Semantics is a really hard one.
The issue is that in SOA semantics is defined by service provider. It is NOT
specific to a consumer/provider pair. A service consumer can have his own
semantics, but he typically has to use a mediator for resolving semantic
differences From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Hi: We have worked through the entirety of
outstanding issues, questions and concerns for section 3 (along the way,
examining also sections 1 & 2). We have, inevitably many, many, edits to
propose! However, and as promised on last
week’s call, we now present a “Strawman”, in the form of the
attached slide deck which we think touches on all the main issues and provides
a narrative for addressing them. We stress this is not an editing exercise
but an attempt to gain consensus on the main issues, definitions and
relationships between terms before the proceeding with presenting detailed
dispositions of textual changes, in line with said consensus. As previously announced, I will not be able
to join the call tomorrow as I’ll be some 30,000 feet over Kansas at the
time of the call. Chris Bashioum will lead off as your Maître d’ Regards, Peter Peter F Brown Independent
Consultant Transforming
our Relationships with Information Technologies P.O. Box
49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel:
+1.310.694.2278 The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]